21C (Triplett: social facilitation, 1898)

Background- cycling competitions

Triplett was a keen sportsman

• noticed that cyclists ride faster in a group

analysed naturally occurring data by looking at results from cycling events by the racing board of the League of American Wheelman

had data on:

1. races against other riders

2. paced races against time

3. unpaced paces against time

findings

races against other riders and paced races are faster than unpaced races

• races against other riders- 26% (40 sec /mile) faster

• paced races- 23% (34 sec /mile) faster

wheelmen themselves agree they improve between 20-39 sec faster /mile

why might paced races and other riders make you faster

1. suction- vacuum left behind by other riders

2. shelter- other riders provide shelter from wind resistance

3. encouragement- other riders keep the sprit up

4. worry- leading race= worry

5. hypnotic suggestion- wheel of the other riders has a hypnotic effect

6. automatic- followers ride automatically and pay less attention to strategy

7. dynamogenic- the bodily presence of another rider arouses competitive instinct

DASHEWS

the study

self-critique of the cycling data

Triplett highlighted the limitations of his cycling studies

• is the difference in time between the racing against other people/time and unpaced due to the kind of men who take part?

• selected quasi design means one set of racers may be better regardless of being up against others

• confounding variable- self-selection, better riders with more experience go up against others of paced

worked in one of the first established experimental labs

the social facilitation experiment- method materials

‘competition machine’- two fishing reels that each pull a flag across a 4m circuit when reeled rapidly

stopwatch and kymograph- record time and graphical record of the rate participants turned fishing reel

• gives visual comparison

• did not use statistics back then

participants and procedure

N= 40 children (8-17 years)

• practice rounds: until all children were familiar with the machine

• trials: 6 trials of 4 rounds lasting 30-40 seconds each with a 5 min break in-between to ensure was not measuring muscle mass

then splits into group A and B:

A. alone, competition, alone, competition, alone, competition

B. alone, alone, competition, alone, competition, alone

this allowed Triplett to compare within and between subjects- controls for individual differences

findings

raw data published

3 tables presented:

1. positively stimulated (N= 20): faster times in competition

2. overstimulated (N= 10): slower times in competition

3. little affected (N=10): same times competition and alone

if he had done averages, this may not have come up

interpretation

overstimulated children rather than lack of motivation

• stimulation bought a loss of control- intense desire to win when up against someone else resulted in overstimulation

• accompanying phenomena= laboured breathing, flushed faces, stiffening or contraction of the muscles in the arm

Debate and controversy- statistical analysis of the data

Strube (2005)

did the statistical analysis of the data:

• found there was a significant competition effect in trial 3 between group A (competition) and group B (alone)

• no other significant differences

within subjects analysis

• contrast between average competition times and average along times significant (p= 0.48)

what did other researchers examine

Triplett looked at why others might help, did not suggest when

other researchers looked at when:

1. Ringelmann: social loafing

2. Zajonc: social facilitation and social loafing in animals and humans

3. Latene: social inhibition (inhibited by others)

Ringelmann

Ringelmann effect

examined how group size effects individual effort

task:

• men in groups of all different sizes pull on a rope

DV: force, same more or less together compared to when they do it alone

• social facilitation effect would be reflected in more force together

findings:

• increase in total force exerted is less than would be expected from the addition of individual sources

• less force when pulling the rope together

may be motivational loss, also coordination loss

Zajonc (1965)

uses drive theory to explain inconsistencies in the research:

• presence of others as a source of arousal

• arousal tends to facilitate the dominant response

dominant response: simple/well learned task is performed (automatic response)

• so in simple/well learned tasks- the presence of others leads to arousal and the correct dominant response

• in complex/novel tasks- dominant response is usually incorrect and you don’t do so well

differences between social facilitation and social loafing

1. social facilitation research

   • focus on observers, audience etc

   • leads to arousal, elevation, distraction

2. social loafing research

   • co-workers or teammates

   • opportunity to reduce efforts- diffusion of responsibility

Impact

by publishing the first social psychological experiment, Triplett set the standard

provided the hallmarks of good research:

1. multiple methodologies

2. multiple theories, competing hypotheses

3. precision and attention to detail

4. modelling real-world dynamics in a controlled environment

5. controlled for confounding (within vs between subjects)

what does this study tell us about co-presence

co-presence- does it positively or negatively influence performance

Tripletts work sparked hundreds of studies on the way the presence of other people affects individual motivation and effort:

• different others

• different tasks

• animals and humans

• underlying processes

• development of theories